Slashdot Mirror
ABCNews:Potential Recommended MS Break-Up
ThaJungle was the first to write us with the news that the U.S. Government may recommend a drastic remedy against Microsoft in its anti-trust suit. This would be the recommedation from the DOJ and the 19 states involved in the suit, not necessarily what Judge Jackson would recommend.
Freeing/Opening Windows source code would
CONDEMN mankind to having to suffer that
crappy code for all eternity! It would never
go away! You got BSOD's now, wait till every
freaking company makes Windows! ARGHHHHH!
The problem with Microsoft is that it forces
us to use Windows, limiting mankind's progress
moreso than any other factor in this day and
age.
BREAK UP MSFT but make sure they KEEP Windows
in just one unit. Windows is pure evil, and
it would spread faster if open.
65000 known bugs? That's "stable"?
In any event: M$-Win2k hasn't been out in the real world long enough to be labeled "stable", yet. 65k bugs or not.
I suspect it's possible at some level. For example: they could be prohibited from establishing legally-binding special agreements betwixt one another. I think this will be a necessary ingredient in any successful breakup. Not a permanent injunction, mind you. Just in place long enough to insure that they truly do operate independently from one another for a time. Say, a year or two?
There's little that could be done to prevent the "Baby Bills" from secretly cooperating amongst themselves. But in the scenario I suggest above: this would clearly be illegal. Opening them up to further legal actions. Let's hope that Gates and his storm troopers have had enough of the Courts for a while and would avoid such activities.
All of the dominant media and tech news sites are wording such references this way. Or in similar terms. This implies that the news media, at least, has accepted as fact that Microsoft is indeed an effective monopoly. (If not a monopoly in absolute terms.) It must be driving Gates and his collective literally nuts every time they see such references--knowing there's not a damn thing they can do about it.
After years of relentless (and in my opinion: usually undeserved) positive press coverage from the tech media, this must really grate.
Bummer, eh Billy Boy? :-)
yeah...I'm using it at work and haven't had a bsod or a hard lock up either. But...this thing is a major fucking pig. My work machine is a PIII 550 with 64 meg of ram and this is a FUCKING dog with win2000. I'm not even doing anything intese. Contanct management, word processing etc..very light stuff.
It sure doesn't handle being low on memory very well either. Stuff just goes away..you click on the start button...nothing happens. You double click on an icon...nothing. Meanwhile I've got a 300 meg swap file so there is no friggin reason for it to run *out* of memory. Don't even try to run this dog in less than 128 meg of ram. Yeah it seems stable but at what cost..Hell NT4 was fairly stable and a hell of a lot faster...
Also...if you want to impress the Unix crowd you need to talk about uptimes in months or years..not days.
My expert review of Win2000: woof woof woof..
If they tried to cooperate, they'd be harming themselves. Is the Apps company refuses to support Linux to help the OS company, they lose income. The stockholders sue. Unlike the government, stockholders aren't even a little bit slow to respond, and the heavy punishments handed out by American courts in civil cases are legendary.
As for the old "by 1997, Microsoft will be irrelevant" argument has been repeated often and without the faintest hint of a result. Netscape had a web browser monopoly and couldn't resist MS. RealNetworks had a monopoly of their own and couldn't resist MS. In fact, MS is stronger and in a better position than ever before no matter what SlashDot readers may say about Linux taking over the world next year. It's all been said before, and the people who say it are always surprised by MS.
This allegations of there being special hidden API calls that Microsoft has put in Windows to make Office run better are not true. I used to work there, so I know why Office performs much better than WordPerfect. It's because they put a lot of effort into analyzing and optimizing the performance of all of their software. I don't think I can disclose the details, but there's nothing illegal about it.
Just when Microsoft brings out a fairly stable OS (Win2K) the company gets wacked to pieces. On the plus side, the new software division might bring out Office for Linux ;-)
Hmmm.....break up Bill into pieces. Cool. Unfortunately, that would mean up to 30% of the U.S. economy would be controlled by his various body parts. "Hey Jim, you still working at Lucent? I hear they just got bought out by Bill's left arm." "Yeah, it's tough. But poor Smitty's office just underwent a hostile takeover by his @ss."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washd c/ncssun12.htm
Prosecutors are coming to believe that simply restraining the company's conduct
Not to mention: monitoring such a remedy would be more expensive for taxpayers.
This was my thinking early-on - when the trial first started. While I have waffled on breakup-vs-other-remedies from time-to-time, I keep coming back to breakup as the most viable solution. Along with time-limited prohibitions against special cooperation between the resulting "Baby Bills." (As I note in a followup elsewhere.) This solution is the cleanest and the most easily administered, IMO. Plus it leaves the resulting companies free to innovate without constant oversight and intervention.
I say ... why not do both; make multiple companies for each product line. If we take the catagories from the article, we could have two Windows companies, two applications companies, and two internet companies. That way, not only will tying be reduced, but also each company would have to fight against another one, and we could avoid subversive, under-the-table dealings between the companies.
I believe for the consumer the best thing is to bust it up into smaller companies, but it's not going to happen, too much politics involved. The Ma Bell breakup back in the early 70's was a completely different story.
I would be really interested by what Ralph Nader would have to say about this alleged recomendation.
Fuck Ajit Pai
Of the options you've given, old-style BSD. I'd like to encourage forking, including proprietary forking, of MSFT OS and apps. I'd also like it to be impossible to convert or merge it to GPL. No copylefting here.
Yes, this is punitive in intent.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Scope out Kuro5hin
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
Office and Applications would no longer be in as deeply ambiguous a position as they currently are, regarding Mac versions. They are used as pawns and there are actually good people involved in the work, but there is a constant undertone of either pressuring people to Windows, or making MacOS more like Windows- most notably in the reliance on 'self-repairing' software, which is a damned fragile hack and assumes the vendor is the one who arranges things on your computer.
OS/Windows would presumably have access to programming tools, and the obvious move for them would be to 'dump' programming tools and porting aids on non-Windows developers. Linux toolkits that crosscompile to Windows, Mac version of VB, whatever. They'll also continue to raise havoc in other ways- again this is a 'realistic' option in that there's no way to make them nice or positive and whatever is done with Microsoft it _will_ continue to be vicious for the foreseeable future.
It's nice to see "Microsoft stock plummets, analysts downgrade Microsoft". That is the only thing that, in the long run, will moderate its essential viciousness. In order for Microsoft to stop being vicious, it needs to _fail_ for a while and learn a measure of humility like almost any other business in the world. Economically they are like haughty, mercurial gods- the collapse of their bloated valuation, the decay of the Microsoft-worship of recent years is the most important outcome, and it _can't_ be court ordered. It happens as people begin to consider the idea of an actual _market_ existing for a change. Gasp, office applications not from Microsoft? That can't happen! Well, yes it can. Gasp, non-MS OSes? That too, and they could be supported by the old familiar Office you've gotten so used to. And that's how it goes...
This is clearly not enough. :)
I recommend, shutting the company down, giving away the source code, dispensing the bank accounts to the Free Software Foundation, and public execution of the executive officers after an appropriate period of stoning.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
And the buisnesses co-operating isn't necessarily a bad thing at all. Colluding to the exclusion of other buisnesses would be disasterous, but hopefully market forces and the threat of further regulatory action would prevent that.
They'd have a hell of a hard time trying to convince anyone to buy shares in `legal'.
In this case, fascdot is right about the game theory outcome. If you write the thing out as a game, the rational outcomes all involve defection between former branches of micrsoft.
It's not a two player repeated game, where there are various ways to get cooperation.
To get results *as bad* as the current results, office and windows must cooperate *exclusively* with each other, and defect from all other players atr all times. However, once split, office gains from cooperating with redhat, solaris, apple, be, qnx, caldera, and just about everyone else outthere.
Similarly, windows has gains from cooperating with correll, lyx, stardivision, etc.
To get ongoing ms cooperation, it is necessary that the gains to office from cooperating with windows while defecting from everyone else exceed the gains from cooperating with everyone (or everyone but windows if there's an ultimatum from windows), and for the gains to office from cooperating exclusively with windows exceed that from cooperating with everyone.
While the first possibility is remote at best, the second *could* happen if windows maintains a large enough market share, which is why I'm part of the minority that prefer a horizontal split (competing versions of windows). But there's too many lawyers who aren't also economists around for that to happen
> As a separate company, it would be impossible for the OS company to
> tell OEMs that they had to install apps from the MS-apps company and
> *not* from any other company.
Not only that, but they'd have no *reason* to make such a demand . . .
Recall that one of the things leading to the break between the U.S. and England was when the crown started paying the salaries of the royal governors.
He who payeth the fiddler, calleth the tune
Even if there is a lump payment from MS to the govt for the supervision costs, the supervision still must be done. IT's intrusive, and will hinder innovation and product--MS would be stuck playing "MOther May I?" every time it wanted to make a change.
This wasn't a forfeiture action; thus they can't be deprived of the underlying property (the programs). In fact, it would be tough to make a forfeiture type case out of this--you'd really have to claim that microsoft was a criminal enterprise, rather than just making criminally crummy software :)
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
Separate colluding companies is *not* worse, but substantially better than just one.
The current cross-behavior makes sense only because the bottom line profits go into the same pocket. Thus it makes sense for windows to take a $30 hit for office to gain $50, and vice versa.
With office and Windows owned separately, it would be necessary for office to *pay* windows at least the $30 to get them to take the hit. There's illegal behavior, and then there's illegal behavior that's easy to spot. This is the latter. It's reall hard to hide payments of 100's of millions between separate companies in these circumstances.
BUt the bottom line is that separate companies are at worst a cartel (they wouldn't be here, due to the different products), and the absolute worst case with a cartel is the monopoly result. However, cartels are unstable, and actual results are better than monopoly.
hawk
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
.
One more time. Everyone take a deep breath. Now repeat after me:
"Open sourcing windows and office is not an option."
OK, now say it again three times slowly.
The court lacks the power to do this. It would be a taking of private property, banned by the Bill of Rights. The *only* way for the court to release the code without microsoft's agreement is for someone to pay the fair market value. I'm reasonably certain that that court does not have tens of billions of dollars in discretionaryfunds, so it would have to go to congress. And Congress is unlikely to allocate that many billion dollars to pay to a monopolist . .
hawk, esq.
It sort of reminds me of a game where a certain rich owner of a newspaper causes a story to be reported which causes a stampede on the stock market, artificially manipulating the price of a certain company's stock downward in order to make it a bargain, so that when the real story surfaces (that MS will get slapped on the wrist because everyone is afraid of the consequences on the stock market - anyone else's stocks go down today besides MSFT?), MSFT's stock rockets back up and rich owner of newspaper who bought at bargain basement prices can make a nice profit.
Has nothing at all to do with the blatantly pro-MSFT stories, almost at the level of advertisement, WSJ has been reporting for the past 5 years.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
who? how? This is not a practical solution.
I think Jail Time IS. Naughty boys need to be spanked!
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
who? how? This is not a practical solution.
I think Jail Time IS. Naughty children need to be spanked!
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
But you have to look at the behavior and tools that got MS into the advantageous position it's in today:
Windows Licensing. The ability to tell Compaq that if they sell OS/2 or Linux on their boxes, that they're going to get the corporate equivalent of a Columbian necktie.
What is to stop the MS OS fragment from developing apps and tying them? Further oversight and regulation.
So basically, breakups do not eliminate the need for continued scrutiny, regulation and oversight. Nor to they address the root of the problem - secret smarmy deals and strongarm tactics.
Here's whatchya do to jab Polyphemus in the eye here: Microsoft may ONLY sell Windows or Apps. at a certain set, publically known price, per single copy. Period. And cannot deny a sale as long as the offered price is met. Suddenly, Linux becomes a whole lot more attractive to the Gateways and Compaqs of the world, because they don't have to worry about selling 10,000 NT boxes, 10,000 Linux boxes, and paying MS for 20,000 copies of NT. IMH(NAL)O, much easier to regulate and oversee, and strikes at the heart of the problem. (well, jail time strikes closer, but we all know that will never happen).
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Me: way big Mac-head going back to 1994. And I agree. Apple would be dead right now, if it weren't for MS Office for Mac. Dead.
Of course, other things happened that were also critical. The iMac, for instance. Apple would be DEAD also if it weren't for the iMac, and will DIE if they don't get their G4 MHz shit together, and if they can't rescue FireWire from intel's mudslinging campaign.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Any remedy that only focuses on preventing the IE strategies is doomed to fail, because MS is already looking at the next products that need help...
The most obvious "opportunity" right now is MSN. They are already using the "MSN rebate" on hardware to try and tie people into using MSN. They've also hinted that they may change their app licensing strategy from "sale" to rental over the Internet (can you say "MSN"?).
There are two types of tactics that we need to watch for:
No matter whether the remedy is a breakup or strict regulation, it will fail miserably unless it is broad enough and forward-looking enough to prevent MS from using identical strategies on future products like MSN.
Methinks one of those words needs 'il' added to it. :)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
People inside Microsoft want to buy more stock, but the value's too high right now. Start a few rumours, watch the value plumet, buy up surplus, and wait for the value to return.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The above simple remedy is much easier to accomplish than a breakup. My bet is that the next DoJ, once you get rid of the 60 retread radicals running the current one, will settle for something like this simple remedy, plus, perhaps, a free or cheap source license like Sun offers.
I wrote parts of this stuff
No thanks. I'm generally opposed to MS given how they have behaved in the past (not to mention that they can't innovate to save their lives) but I also live within the Minimum Safe Distance from MS.
;)
So let's not go overboard.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Naw. Word came out for the Mac first, and very rapidly. (although IIRC, MS bought it from someone else while it was still in development)
MacWrite was popular only because it was bundled with the Mac for a couple of years, to jump start sales (this was in the day when there was virtually no Mac software to be had at all)
Word was very popular. v3 had more bugs than the American embassy in Moscow, but v4 was brilliant. Wish I still had it.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Not quite. Such collusion would be illegal (between any two companies, not just baby Bills). And the government would surely keep a close watch on MS.
I think breakup is the best solution. Any regulation is hard to enforce and requires lots of supervision from the government. Besides, MS has a history of disregarding government's orders.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
That last statement should read, "Bill knows this -- that's why he extends and embraces, buys out the competition, deploys astroturfing, abuses marketing and PR..."
MS doesn't compete. MS brainwashes those with money.
Also, I maintain that breaking up MS is the only remedy. No amount of "monitoring" or something like that is going to make them change. If the execs were to get lots of jail time for their business decisions, I'd agree that a non-breakup solution would have merit. Until that decade, I say bust them up into 27 pieces.
(all of the above is simple opinion. With the way the press spins dookie into gold nuggets, it's hard to decide what is fact and what is not.)
--
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
Hey, watch it! I live near Hanford (Tri-Cities).
:>
It's bad enough that I glow in dim light.
That said, it would be nice to see if we can make the MS campus have the same properties as a lump of charcoal.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
This proposed breakup isn't because XXXX piece of Microsoft software sucks.
This breakup is because XXXX competitor's software died in a larval stage because Microsoft smashed it to pieces.
I can't say for certain whether or not a breakup will be a good thing, or how it will turn out. But in theory, this should benefit not only Mac or Linux users, but those who like to run Office on Windows as well.
If you like Microsoft software, just imagine how much better it'd be if they actually had serious competition to worry about. Office would be 30% faster and leaner, Windows could run on multiple platforms, and you could substitute the IE web browsing widget with another if you so choose.
Perhaps there never even would have been a Microsoft Bob...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Say the MS-Office suite is split off as a separate entity from the operating system. All of a sudden there is no particular advantage to NOT port Office to other OSes. They can still port to Apple/MacOS AND they can now port to Solaris, *BSD, BeOS, Linux... whatever. It would be a distinct advantage for the Office "baby bill" to do so. (More ports == more sales).
There will NOT be any advantage for the Windows (operating system) "baby bill" to try and pull any "incompatibility" shennanigans with other application makers including the other "baby bills".
I think there will be an ongoing struggle as to how much they can call it "innovating". Say, something like, "innovating" Office in to IE.
The real stranglehold MS has on the software world is not their OS, nor IE... it is Office. Office is NOT all that an incredible an application suite... there are others with equivalent functionality. The key to Office is its proprietary file formats. People and businesses that prefer other office suites feel they have to get MS-Office because all their clients and other businesses use Office. None of the file translators works perfectly between systems. Eventually something gets munged (Office will do that to its own files!!). I don't think they should open up the file formats for office suites... I think an open file standard should be established for ALL office suites.
"Don't sweat the technique."
>The fact that the idea of killing al lthe idiots has two upticks for "insightful" scares me a hell of a lot more than Microsoft does...
Yes. And what was your user name again, please?
BOFH^HGeoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
If I combine that with the postscript on this article,
Shares of Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) fell more than seven points in pre-market trading on Monday after two U.S. newspapers reported that the Justice Department and 19 states are leaning toward asking a court to split up the software giant. The stock traded at 71 on Instinet more than three hours before the opening bell, traders said, compared with Friday's closing price of 78-15/16 on Nasdaq.
does that mean that Gates is no longer the richest man on earth??
>using IE will still use IE. Further, it is still to each Baby Bill's advantage
> to simply license software to one another; nothing has changed.
I think that it would be relatively simple to proscribe the new companies from licensing software to one another; that would have to part of any remedy.
And as for people still buying Word, what's the problem with that? If it has to compete on its own, and succeeds, then that is the way it OK. Monopolies are fine if they are not exploited. I still have a problem with IE; that even if it could compete on it's own today it would not have succeeded except for the previous exploitation of the Windows monopoly.
But -- I hope that Microsoft is broken up, to as fine a pieces as possible, and then I hope that those pieces all succeed without the legacy of being tied to the albatross of the operating system.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
I have been reading dozens of articles from various places that Judge Jacksons *doesn't* want a breakup, that its the corporate equivalent of the death penalty. States didn't want a breakup, either. Now, suddenly, a breakup is part of the plan?
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
Folks,
Gawd, somebody at the DoJ has some sense!
If Microsoft was to be broken up, I would have strongly favored a breakup along product lines in a horizontal breakup, NOT create a bunch of "Baby Bills" with identical product lines in a vertical breakup, something I seriously feared the DoJ might just try to do.
The reason is very simple: this keeps product development advancing at a predictible pace. Because Windows will still continue to advance under a single standard, we don't run the risk of competing standards for future Windows improvements and the major risk of compatibility problems.
One of the reasons why Linux hasn't advanced more rapidly in popularity is the fact you have a lot of competing standards for Linux above the kernel level. That does explain why most of the large computer companies that do preload Linux (e.g., Dell, Compaq, IBM, etc.) use Red Hat Linux 6.1 (and soon 6.2), since Red Hat Linux has become more or less the "de facto" standard for Linux; IT managers want to standardize on ONE commercial distribution of Linux for compatibility reasons.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Actually, the apps company would continue to make money; I'd bet Office is a bigger earner than Windows.
The three-company split is extremely probematical, though; as far as I know, MSN has negligible revenues and losses for as far as the eye can see, and of course the IE browser is strictly a cash drain. I don't see how that company could survive for more than a year or two, depending on how generious its initial funding is.
What I'm wondering is how the "Baby Bills" could become independent. This is not like the AT&T breakup, where management of the individual companies became in control. Bill would still be a controlling shareholder in all the babies, and he'd still be able to do what he would with them. If he was ordered to sell them off, I would assume that he'd wind up appointing his successors in management. If Gates took over one company and Ballmer the other, wouldn't they just continue working together as before? I don't think he'd hand over his company to his worst enemy or anything.
Thoughts?
D
----
Sure, they could all work together--but simple game theory predicts they won't.
Simple game theory isn't good enough for me, especially when the playing field isn't level.
With such a demonstrably bad actor as Microsoft both kinds of remedy are needed. To make a short proof by example: what about Kerberos? Even with the OS division hived off, Kerberos is still at risk from attack by NT servers and W98ME clients running "extended" versions of the protocol (read: intentionally compatible only with Microsoft products, and, to make matters worse, secret). Even with the IE division separate from the division that sells IIS (yes, they'll have to SELL it!), a conduct remedy is necessary to prevent those two Micro-Microsofts from cooperating, to their mutual benefit, by continuing to implement and support non-standard versions of web protocols, known only to the two of them. Etc. etc, there are many such strategems available for defeating the intent of remedies if they are purely structural. All these strategems need to be anticipated and addressed.
By the same token conduct remedies alone are insufficient. This was more than adequately demonstrated by the way Microsoft (read: Bill) was able to weasel around the earlier consent decree on product tying.
Both kinds of remedy are obviously needed. If any weaker approach is applied we'll just see the whole sordid affair playing out again 3 years down the road, wasting everybody's time and money, including Microsoft's.
And don't think any of this is unfair to Microsoft - you live by the sword you die by the sword. None of this is going to harm Microsoft to nearly the same extent they harmed their competitors, their allies (e.g., IBM), and legions of poor, befuddled consumers (who have come to believe that crashing is just part of the normal behaviour you expect from a computer and that rebooting is part of installing an application).
At worst the Micro-Microsofts will simply have to compete like normal companies from now on. That means, hmm, writing business plans like anyone else, getting capital from the same places everybody else gets it instead of extorting it from witless consumers, making deals that are beneficial to both parties and don't turn into the kinds of rape scenes we've seen in the past, going hat in hand to the bank, an so on. In other words, normal healthy capitalism.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Microsoft will need to be broken into more than 3 parts, and they will all need new names. I'd like to suggest:
Baby Bill #1: Nanosoft
Baby Bill #2: Bill's Software Repair
Baby Bill #3: Necrosoft
Baby Bill #4: Steve's Drivethru Benchmarks Inc.
Baby Bill #5: Zombiesoft
Baby Bill #6: Black Hat Software
Baby Bill #7: Microwas
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Under the Findings of Fact, it was revealed that not only did MS give IE away, but they actually paid AOL to take it (specifically, they paid off AOL's contract with Netscape). The purpose was to keep others from developing software for Netscape and thus protect the OS.
As separate companies, the Apps company would lose money and the OS company would make money. There's no easy way to cross-subsidize losses in one company from another. Even if it was legal for the OS company to pay the Apps company for the collusion, it would be impossible to hide such a payment and stockholders would react accordingly.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
The whole case was about how MS leveraged one part of the business (monopoly OS) to force acceptance of their standards and keep that monopoly. They had to wipe out Netscape as quickly as possible. They gave IE away; they paid AOL to take it; they forced OEMs to stop installing Netscape; they paid web developers to develop IE-enhanced pages.
As a separate company, it would be impossible for the OS company to tell OEMs that they had to install apps from the MS-apps company and *not* from any other company. They couldn't use the copyright defense since they would be forcing OEMs to install software that would be owned by another company. Suddenly, OEMs would again be free to determine which were the best apps and install them. If Mozilla becomes a better browser than IE, OEMs would distribute it. Suddenly, MS would have to have a better product *before* everyone started using it. They couldn't use this leverage to make their apps the defacto standards.
And how is the company that makes IE going to make any money? The more it's accepted, the more it costs the MS-apps company. With no income and a requirement to produce the best software, the Apps company would soon fade into oblivion.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Well, I would expect a company whose primary business is operating systems to publish full specifications no matter what the developers are doing. Think about Apple or Sun. Then think about Microsoft, whose primary business is now really applications, and not the OS.
In fact most VB programmers are corporate types that couldn't leave in droves if they wanted to (well, they could, but Windows and VB would live on without them).
I think that your game theory analysis is correct. Right now, many new features developed by the "OS" wing are really there at the request of the applications groups. Microsoft can afford to spend money on projects like COM+ and ADO and so on, because they know that the next versions of Office and IE will use that technology.
Now think of a situation where the OS group actually has to evangilize their features. What happens when they develop a wizzy new feature like "SuperCOM++", and the Office, Inc and WordPerfect and everyone else decide not to use it. It's a loss. The Windows corporation will get burned this way, just as Apple did with OpenDoc, and the result is that they will be very careful about adding new featuers. The Win32 API might even stabilize, like Unix's has.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Right -- a free product like Internet Explorer probably would never have come to be, except as the product of a monopoly.
And while Microsoft has done a pretty good job 'integrating' IE into Windows, to the point where it would almost make more sense for the Windows company to take IE instead of the Apps company. But politically, that's not likely to happen.
So, IE goes to the Apps company. Their first big licencee is the Windows company, because almost nothing in Win2K will work without IE installed, and unlike "98lite", this will take quite a bit of time to fix. Furthermore, IE is a good browser and almost a standard feature for Windows users, so big OEMs like Dell and Compaq would likely be happy to licence it at $10/PC.
Furthermore, IE is currently being 'integrated' into MS Office, MS Exchange/Outlook, and numerous other application platforms. The apps company will not be able to complete their groupware plans without control over the client (IE). So, there's a huge incentive for them to keep developing it.
If anyone is going to have trouble, it's not the Apps company, but the OS company. Operating Systems have essentially become a low value product. Apple and Sun give them away to sell hardware. RedHat gives one away to sell services. Microsoft makes money on the OS, but the real point is to develop a platform for the applications, which are the real profit centers.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Service: The poor service and arrogance ...
One thing to realize is that Microsoft currently doesn't make any money on 'services', preferring to farm that business out to third parties. This makes them almost unique in the computer business, and is one reason that MS has so many loyalists.
Compare this to IBM, where the service is great, but you are paying through the nose for it. IBM makes more money off the services than the hardware or software. Now look at the IBM VARs -- generally unhappy because IBM is their biggest competitior.
So, a broken-up Microsoft is almost assuredly going to be a bigger services player. Lots of third parties will be pissed off. Service might improve, but it will also be more costly. (Some people think this areadly might be happening -- MS is in a deal with Andersen Consulting, MCSEs are being decertified, and good ActiveDirectory documentation is almost impossible to come by without signing an NDA.)
I suppose the Linux folks might not care about this situation, but in the long run it will serve to make Windows 2000 a more 'closed' platform with a 'closed' culture surrounding it, much like IBM products such as the AS/400. This, of course will only serve to help Linux, with it's very open culture and extremely VAR friendly business terms.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
You know, I think the funniest part about that division is that no one is writing software.
I guess they'll have to continue buying their new products from someone else!! : )
It could probably be argued that this case should not form the basis for more general remedies, and legally that may be true. But I still believe that in order to be effective, some remedy other than breaking up the company needs to be used.
As for the effects of breaking the company up, since bundling has worked spectacularly so far, I see no reason why the Microsoft/OS and Microsoft/Office companies wouldn't collude to continue their current behavior: while the profits would get split up, their market dominance would remain. Sure, that's illegal, too, but it buys them another 5-10 years of litigation, and then probably some similarly ineffective remedy will be used. That kind of behavior can go on forever, with little financial consequence to the Microsoft companies and little change in their behavior. That's why I think something different is needed.
But actually I doubt that much of anything is going to happen: both political parties are very-corporate friendly these days, and while Microsoft's competitors don't like Microsoft's business practices, they like the thought that they might be next to be hauled into court for their anticompetitive practices even less. And there are plenty of other examples of anticompetitive practices.
Something similar goes for the other often-discussed remedy, open sourcing Windows (without making it freely redistributable). That would simply entrench Microsoft software further.
Good remedies I can think of would be:
Microsoft has been squashing the competition not through better technologies but through misleading marketing and announcements, forcing unfavorable terms on others, and buying out competitors, a direct result of their market position. That conduct has denied consumers better technology and choice, and that conduct needs to be addressed directly.
The point of this isn't to force them to make better software. It's to create competition in the arena's in which they have monopolies, mainly operating systems, but possibly office suites as well after hearing of all the "knife the baby" talks with Apple. No judge in the world is going to dictate a level of quality that must be achieved by a software company...
Yeah, Netscape makes money off their server software. Even though no one has heard of Netscape Enterprise server in years, one day I went around and checked HTTP headers on webservers for the heck of it, and many are actually running on Netscape's server software.
As much as we're all excited about the rising of Linux and the falling of Microsoft, for some reason these factors are being completely ignored in many cases. People are still switching to windows in hoards, unfortunately. I hear about UNIX->NT more often than NT->UNIX.
Also, at RPI where I go to school, it's getting worse. Most of the main computer labs used to be all UNIX (SGI and Sun), and now they're Windows machines. We also now have a mandatory laptop program for incoming freshman (IBM Thinkpads with Win98) that's turning everyone slowly into Windows-junkies. We still have several good UNIX labs, but you NEVER see anyone but upperclassmen and grads using them (except for myself and maybe one or two other people). We did recently get a very good deal from Sun on a huge load of Ultra 10's, but the all went to "special people" labs and offices, so the undergrads don't even see them. It quite easy to graduate from this school today without even touching UNIX.
At least our ACM chapter straight UNIX/non-Windows. Our fights are mostly Linux vs. BSD.
A thought occurs to me: thinking in terms of corporations is a bad thing, and it should not distract anyone from the fact that individual people are making willful decisions to break the law. Indict them!
When the next CEO of Microsoft decides whether or not to break the law, one of the factors in his decision will be this: the expressions on Gates' and Ballmer's face when they were on "Hard Copy" crying about how they get their asses reamed every day in prison. The CEO will stop and think, "Do I want to keep this cushy CEO job, or should I risk going to prison?" I think that would have a profound limiting effect on how rogue a corporation can be.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Of course they can. The whole point of a fine is to make it hurt. They just have to set it high enough so that it does so, even if the overall magnitude of the fine is shocking and unprecendented. Think in terms of percentage of equity, rather than total dollars.
(Heh, then when Microsoft cries that its total equity is overstated, put people in jail for fraudulent accounting.)
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
No, your reasoning is flawed, and I'll demonstrate it with a counter-example: Netscape.
Netscape is still alive and kicking, despite not having an OS to use as a cash cow or as a springboard, and Netscape _is_ giving away the browser for free (and I doubt AOL or anyone else would have bought it if it was just a money-drain).
So the Internet-M$ could have very well given off the browser for free, leveraging maybe on some other sector (better integration with IIS, Portals or whatever else).
So someone's going to have to keep monitoring them to make sure they don't co-operate?
I thought that was what the breakup proposal was supposed to avoid!
Yes, it is entirely possible that they will end up being more powerful and profitable. It is a proven economic fact that monopolies are inefficient; thus breaking up will increase the competitiveness of the parts.
If the goal is make Microsoft lose money, then, yeah, slap a few billions on fines on them, make the investors flee in panic so the share price may drop. This interpretation - that the DOJ is off to kill Microsoft as a corporation - might be common in their minds of M$droids.
However, this is not case. The goal is to create to more competivive landscape where - in the end - everyone benefits from the results of the breakup of Microsoft: competitors, consumers, the computing industry, the whole economy - and, yes, also Microsoft shareholders.
Of course, this is just day dreaming. I'll withdraw back into my Linux hole now :)
IANAL.
My understanding is that the State that a corporation is charterd in does have the authority to invoke the "death penalty" by revoking a corporation's charter. The Feds do not have this authority, nor should they.
However, (fortunately or unfortuantely, depending on your perspective), this ability of the States to demand good corporate behavior from their corporate "citizens" has been pretty much a dead letter. Politicians need (advertising) dollars to get elected, and corporations have those dollars. And if enough politicians did have the collective cohones to stand up to that, corporations can always punish the local constituents by moving jobs over a state line, which tends to make politicians unpopular with the voters, and thus ex-politicians.
The law? I believe that sort of thing is illegal too. If they were to do that, they would find themselves right back in court.
yeah, and than sun approaches the os-part and asks the to add star office on the cd. They even could *offer* the os-branch money to get them to do that - just for a giggle.
OS-branch declines, sun informs the shareholders, shareholders sue managers, end of game.
Or a consortium of SuSe, Redhad, Caldera asks for the license to port office to linux (god forbid) - same game.
No, they may be able to do some cooperation but in the end they can be pressured to work against each other. Each of the split entities will have a very strong competition which sharpened their profile in their struggle against the former microsoft. The OS and the applications branch will have *zero* cost competitors, that'll get interesting.
They can't. Sales, marketing, and legal are all one department. :)
If each company can still develop IE, can't the Windows baby STILL get away with packaging IE in Windows? Isn't that what the DOJ wants to avoid?
Bill Gates was not much of a hacker. A person that needs database->web access "as easy as 1-2-3" would obviously also require copious documentation for a freakin' web browser.
I think you are keeping it MS-Real 2000, and you'll have to upgrade next year. Does your world spin backwards as well?
Blar.
Two things:
First off, he was not talking about making MSWin plus CloneWin 1 plus CloneWin 2 plus CloneWin 3. He was talking about CloneWin1, CloneWin2, CloneWin3 and CloneWin4. They would be absolutely identical, no one having any better claim to "real" MS lineage than any other. In all respects, they'd be on equal footing.
Second, assume your proposed situation were the case. If you think that a lot of people wouldn't take Clone Windows at a significantly (for different values of significant) lower price, if they were the same (or even if they weren't), then I'm afraid you haven't paid much attention to history. Take a look at the early 80's, and at what happened when first Compaq, then other companies made cheap clones of the IBM PC. IBM tried exactly the same tactics as you've described (coercing 3rd party app developers into claiming that an IBM Clone wouldn't be fully supported (and in many cases that was true)), but it didn't help. The price decrease was enough to get a critical mass of people to switch.
And look at where we are today in the PC market. 2 decades ago, hardware became commoditized. There's no reason why the same could not happen to software today.
Sure it won't happen overnight. But that's not to say it won't happen.
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
> corporations will standardize on what they percieve the market leader is.
Ok, but how are they going to determine that? That's what I was getting at. You were paying too much attention to the names. I agree... it won't matter one damn bit what they're called. My point was that they'd all be equal. Since they all came directly from MS in the first place, they'd all share the same codebase, the same document sets, etc, etc. They would share customers equally. There would be no difference whatsoever between them.
Who decides then which one is the market leader? One company may perceive said market leader as different from the next company. So where are we now?
And my PC analogy is not brain-damaged. Rather, it may be, but not for the reason you mentioned. You say that (1) A PC is easier to clone than the MS code, and (2) the PC makers didn't have to clone very much.
Those are both true, but totally irrelevant. You keep approaching this as if there would be one MS (or whatever it descended into) and several clones that came in from outside sources and tried to copy MS.
That is simply not the situation we are talking about. We are talking about splitting MS from the inside. Like taking an orange and cutting it into 4 quarters (or 3 thirds or whatever). They would all come from the same place. No-one would have to "clone" (clone as in copy) anything. They would all come from exactly the same place. They would be identical copies of each other. So it doesn't matter how hard the code would be to copy, since no-one would be copying anything from an outside position. It would be duplicated from the inside.
Get it now?
--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Aggh. Wrong. Why do people post if they have no clue. Presumably, because they never did live under the old regime.
Once upon a time, there was a monopoly phone company, known affectionately as Ma Bell. Ma Bell sold you local telephone service, long distance service, and every freaking phone in your house. Wait; take that last part back: since Ma Bell charged you for extra phones and phonelines, most people only had one phone. Again, people actually didn't complain that much, since Ma Bell was seen as a benevolent dictator, subject to regulation, and the phone system was surely a natural monopoly, right?
Wrong. I don't know about you, but today I've got local service from one company, long distance from a second, three good, cheap phones from companies that couldn't make phones for the US market before the break-up. I can dial around the long distance provider at will. I can get a cell phone from one of several competing companies. My real cost per minute for service has gone down a lot. I could have gotten high speed internet access service (ADSL or ISDN)from the local phone company or from one of four local ISPs. Ironically, perhaps, I chose to get a cable modem from ATT itself because it was cheaper and better. In a week or three, I'll be doing my own in-home wireless networking set-up using technology from Lucent, which contains parts of the old ATT that used to make the solid but boring monopoly-priced phones you had to use.
Oh yeah: I inherited stock that used to be ATT shares, but ended up being stock in all the baby bells, Lucent, and now (after some financial dealings) Vodaphone Airtouch, a huge British wireless company. Needless to say, the babies and split-offs have done phenomenally better than the old ATT shares had done historically.
I could go on and on, but the point is that the break-up of ATT is now a textbook case on why it might still be a good idea to break up companies that have monopoly power, even when they have good PR. Whether or not breaking up Microsoft is the best idea or not does not mean that the break-up of ATT was anything but a huge win for everybody concerned.
Babar
IANAL, but...
-Militant Elf (A PFY for a BOFH)
(remove the sos for deliverable mail)
It's true that it's remarkably hard for companies selling competing products to collude to get monopoly prices...But it's not nearly as clear that firms selling complementary products--each the dominant one in its market--are unlikely to collude.
Considered in a vacuum, you are right. But when you consider the context, I think your assumption "each the dominant one in its market" falls apart. The OS company would have a commanding lead on the desktop, to be sure. But on the server? No way. The App company (think SQL Server, Exchange, etc) leaps into this gap.
However, I think you are right as a general principle--complementary collusion (to coin a phrase) would be hard to prevent for all cases. But the case of "competitors already exist when the collusion is suggested" is trivial to solve.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
When I said "developers leaving in droves", I didn't mean "Microsoft employees" nor "companies who develop for Windows". I meant "individual programmers who are interested in a platform". I was WAY into MS 5 years ago (reading VB Journal and everything). Now I'm out. I see a LOT of other people doing the same. We're all sick of being jerked around.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
"Such collusion would be illegal..."
So? What they are doing NOW is illegal.
The way to get someone to do what you want is to make it profitable (in whatever currency he uses) to do so. We want Microsoft to compete (rather than crush). We make that behavior profitable by breaking them up.
Some commenters have noted that this won't put MS out of business--no kidding. The point here is not to crush MS--it's to make them play fair. By making fairness more profitable (to reward the behavior we want) we also make MS money. Not much of a punishment you say--right, I say, that's why it's called a "remedy".
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
We all know that Microsoft maintains it's position not by superior products but by simple marketing. We also know that many other companies hold on to their (non-monopoly) positions the same way. In fact, decisions made on the basis of marketing rather than quality can be blamed for a lot of our problems, including Congress.
So I propose the following remedy: Kill the idiots. We all know several idiots. Kill them. These idiots may include your boss (who decided to use MS PPTP for the corporate VPN), your coworker (who laughs when you can't configure a winmodem, and then goes back to installing Service Pack 6), your ISP (who asks if you run a Mac or a PC "You know...Windows"). Kill them all.
Just think what a wonderful world it would be where you wouldn't have people claiming that "NT is standards compliant" or "Best viewed with [insert browser name here]".
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I see a lot of comments about "how will a breakup keep the baby bills from conspiring together?" It won't--because it won't need to. Regular old market forces will do the work for us.
For instance, let's say they break into OS, Apps, Publishing, Hardware. First move by Apps is to port Office to Linux. Countermove by OS is to remove optimizations for Office, making WordPerfect (and all the others) run equally well. OS also probably publishes API spec to lure developers back (who are leaving in droves right now). Publishing and Hardware, now free to jump on the Linux bandwagon, do so. Etc etc etc.
Sure, they could all work together--but simple game theory predicts they won't. Together they could make a killing (just like they are now), but as separate companies the lure to "defect" (break the cartel) would just be too strong.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
As John Lithgow's character yelled in the movie _2010_:
"It's Shrinking! It's Shrinking!"
Seriously, when the Microsofties all cash in their options to save what real cash they can, this will do more damage than the DoJ ever could.
Part of the Second American Revolution!
>The real question to me is: what do you do with a rogue corporation? Microsoft's monopoly doesn't scare me half as much as their total disrespect for the law. The government can fine you and I, and throw our collective butts in jail, for committing crimes. They can't fine Microsoft enough to make them feel the pain, and they can't really incarcerate them.
====
Well you can 'fine' then enough to make it hurt. Just 'fine' them windows 2000. You just say the government is taking windows 2000 and you loose the copyrights on it or something similar. Make it legal to give out their programs until they comply.
Remember 'We the people' gave up our RIGHTS to copy things to 'further arts and science.' If a company is stopping the furthering of arts and science I think they should loose this protection. I'm so frustrated when people think that copyrights are for a corporation to make money, They are not, copyrights are to make MY life better.
Remember what happened to fishermen who tried to get rid of seafishes by cutting them in pieces? They ended up with many more seafishes.
But Judge Jackson said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them software. /dev/null, chapter 14.)
And they say unto him, We have here but one Microsoft.
He said, Bring it hither to me.
And he commanded the DOJ to sit down, and took the Microsoft, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the companies to his disciples, and the disciples to the DOJ.
And they did all have software, and were filled: and they took up of the stocks that remained twelve billion dollars full.
(Gospel according to
M$FT should also have to put disclaimers on their products. Such as "Warning this product was made to break Industry Standards and Lock you into using MS Products. After installing this product we will force you to upgrade every 8-12 months with a new version that does not fix all the bugs in the old version, but is twice the size and twice as expensive. At which time we will stop selling CAL's for the old version. The new version will also attemp to break more Industry Standards and limit your choices even more in an attemp to control the information of the information age." ACCEPT / RUN LIKE HELL
Washington Post is citing "people familiar with the discussions."
/. discussions. Hmmm...anybody know what color Elian's shirt is today? :)
Oh great, now we're having a slashdot discussion about quotes from
--
+&x
All corporations have a will, which reads roughly: we pay off our creditors first, then sell off all our assets and distribute that to our shareholders.
This would be straightforward with other corporations, but a bit tricky with Microsoft. Microsoft's biggest assets are the copyrights to Windows * and Office *, and it's those assets that we're scared of. If J. Random Software House bought these copyrights at auction, would they become the next Microsoft?
--The basis of all love is respect
The real question to me is: what do you do with a rogue corporation? Microsoft's monopoly doesn't scare me half as much as their total disrespect for the law. The government can fine you and I, and throw our collective butts in jail, for committing crimes. They can't fine Microsoft enough to make them feel the pain, and they can't really incarcerate them.
I don't believe in the death penalty for people, but I do believe in it for corporations--less bloodshed. The courts need the rights to do real damage to a company, possibly pulling their papers of incorporation or simply denying them access to stock markets such as the NASDAQ. Remember, these are govenrment-granted priveleges, not inherent rights (corporations have no inherent rights; no matter what the Supreme Court says, they are not people).
I don't suggest that the courts try to do either to Microsoft...yet. However, I do believe that the courts need this sort of power, to be used only in the most extreme of circumstances, in order to give their rulings teeth.
I am not a fan of giving a lot of power to a government. However, I do believe that the government must have the power to trump a corporation. Otherwise, the Bill of Rights may one day become a EULA.
--The basis of all love is respect
Do you remember how Microsoft beat Netscape? They decided to develop Internet Explorer and give it away for free, when Netscape was selling their browser. If Microsoft had been two different companies then, the Internet one may not have been able to withstand giving away their product for free, because it wouldn't have the profit from the operating system. While the three companies could certainly still cooperate, they couldn't use their power in one aspect of the software business to take over another part. A broken off Internet department of Microsoft couldn't legally make itself totally unprofitable to be OS Microsoft's puppy dog, since it is a publically held company.
Now they have every Windoze developer by the 'nards. They keep putting out bullshit upgrades, just to make a buck, and the only thing they add to it is a new toolbar. Sheesh.
When it comes down to it, the biggest question is what role you think coercion should play in the marketplace, and of what nature.
Long term, there are a lot of potential ill effects that could come out of a software marketplace which is regulated by a chamber of "wise men."
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
This "solution" has been bandied about so often that it's obvious that it's the one Gates wants and has been promoting. Anyone remember a monopoly called AT&T and what happened to it? As "punishment" it was broken up into a number of smaller companies - AT&T long distance, Bell Labs (which became Lucent) and the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs). Holders of AT&T stock got shares in these newly created companies.
The combined value of the individual companies now far exceeds the value of the original entity. From the perspective of the majority shareholder, this can only be a "good thing".
Also, anyone been following how, like the T-1000 Terminator, the globs of the original phone system (Ameritech, Southwestern Bell, Pac Bell) are reforming back into the national monopoly? And they're doing it in the name of "competition".
Choose some other remedy that has not been so extensively promoted in the national media...the media wholly owned and operated by wealthy individuals that doubtlessly own large amouts of Microsoft stock. Open Windows' source code...if only to hear the rollicking laughter from the coders who download it.
But, whatever you do, don't throw Briar Bill in that briar patch."How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
We all heard the rumors, but if this break up actually happens (two years from now?) How fast will they port MS Office to Linux. Rumor has it that it has already been ported, but we won't know for sure until there is a break up.
I've heard from people that actually been there, that it has been ported. But I don't know if they are sincere or just pulling my leg.
But I have heard from different sources that the different groups of workers at Microsoft compete heavily against each other, and a break up would obviously make it more so. So the Office people can finally say "Now we are free to go where we choose", be it Linux, Free BSD or whatever.
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
I don't think breaking up MS is the solution. That will just push them to secretly establish their monopoly. The baby MS's would likely not be very independent of one another, and the whole thing would start again.
Not to mention that by the time this went through, windows will probably be old and so will IE....2 Years is a LONG TIME in computing.
Actually, it's both.
...
Now is a good time to buy, if you can hold out for six to nine months. Then, when it gets broken into OS, Net/IE, and Applications chunks, which hopefully Bill G will only own two of, sell off the OS and Net/IE chunks about six weeks later (to allow for bounce back) on a product announce (vaporware, most likely; or heavy mistware possible) and then ride the Applications chunk until it kicks out the Linux suites and drop it too.
Easy money.
And yes, this will mean Microsoft Office for Linux is coming
Will in Seattle
You can break MSFT into 500 parts and it's immaterial if the ownership is still mostly that of the current Board (e.g. Bill G and Paul A) for each part. What you need to do is, after splitting it up, require substantial holders (of more than 1% total value) to decide which two of three or three of four parts they will hold equal shares in.
And then there's Disclosure. All APIs transmitted between companies must be made public. Only by that means can we ensure that the different parts can't use insider tricks to get faster code. It's like Open Source - if everyone knows the code, we all can mod it. I'm not opting for publishing the code base, I doubt that would get through the political process of the courts, but requiring any unpublished API usage by the component parts must be published withing 30 days on the Net in an open form.
[note - yes, I own some MSFT stock, and yes, I'm buying some more - I intend to ride it until the post-breakup highs and dump it]
Will in Seattle
but... but... tell me how you *really* feel.
Okay, I don't remember when the Microsoft trial started, but it hasn't been ten years yet. Plus, remember, litigation has only gotten worse since then. I wouldn't be surprised if this takes fifteen years.
Y'know, I meant this to be funny, but I realize now that it might not be that far off. Hope I'm wrong.
I just took a job with a company this week that is currently a microsoft house. I had the same debate you did.
:-)
(Apache vs IIS)
The company desided it was in thier best interest to have both and hired me. I think even most die hard M$ companies are starting to at least look at unix style solutions.
With all the legal stuff happining to M$ right now M$ does not appear as "stable" for bussiness solutions as it did a few years ago. I know the courts won't do anything to change M$ dramaticly ( even if they do appeals will keep it from happening for years) but bussinesses that depend on M$ are starting to hedge there bets.
Looks like FUD can work both ways
AdFuel
MCSD= Microsoft Certified System Developer?
Yes, AT&T is merging back, but the entire market is still operating in a competitive fashion. thousands of phone cards, long distance cariers, phone solicitation... everything shows there isn't a monopoly situtation.
If microsoft would hire people to call consumers to "switch to Windows" then we are talking.
If Microsoft is broken up, it would be the first time the Justice Department shattered a company in this way since the 1984 breakup of telephone monopoly AT&T. Launched in 1974, the landmark antitrust suit against "Ma Bell" resulted in the creation of regional phone companies, sometimes referred to as "Baby Bells," such as Bell Atlantic, US West and Ameritech.
I'm not sure the extent to which the DoJ was involved with this, but AT&T was not broken up because they were violating any laws. In fact, it was AT&T that initiated the breakup so that they could sell computers and the Unix operating system, something they were prohibited from doing by the limited monoply granted to them by the government.
Why can't people ever get this right?
-p.
Breaking up Microsoft is a good step. Frankly, it's one of the only ones that could be taken. However, It's not going to be enough. Instead of one big company holding 80% of the OS market and 80% of the desktop suite market, you'll have 2 smaller companies, one holding the OS market and one holding the app market. It's not much progress.
At the same time Microsoft is broken up, the court should open the source code. Perhaps a new open source license would have to be devised for this, but it wouldn't be that difficult to come up with. By doing this, the court will cause competition to return to the market.
Let's all get over our irrational thoughs of "Windows is evil!" It's not evil. It just performs poorly. Windows is not a bad OS, what's bad is that it's monopolized by one company. By opening the source, other people can work on making it better, less bloated, and more cooperative with other apps. And the code line will fork and be sold by different companies. It would also provide a huge jump to windows emulators.
And what about the poor broken up Microsoft, which is now left with a pile of code that they have to share with everyone? Well, they keep claiming that they're innovators, that they drive technology. If that's the case, I'm sure they'll come up with something new pretty quickly. If not, and they were just lying to everyone, they'll dissapear. And of course, they could still provide a paid support structure for Windows and Office for those people that really like that security.
-Todd
---
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
Let the customers choose to install the Os themselves! Let them handle Microsoft. The OEMs need not install any OS, if they so choose. This should drive away a lot of Microsoft's market on the desktop. And it will be easier than having to police M$.
Just my 2c.
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
A point that seems to have been missed in all the postings here is a (not-so?) subtle issue of corporate governance. First note, IANAL, so what follows may be slightly (or wildly?) inaccurate - do your own research, do not rely on my opinion.
So what is my point? Corporate law protects the corporate management from a lot of things. This is known as the "corporate shield". All a manager has to do is act in the - as far as he/she can be reasonably expected to know - legal best interests of the owners of (i.e. shareholders in) the company and the manager is pretty much immune to prosecution or suit. The requirement to act in the best interests of the owners is known as "fiduciary responsibility" and applies to all trusties, including corporate management. If a trusty violates "fiduciary responsibility" that trusty can be PERSONALLY sued for damages incurred.
In the case of a M$ breakup into OS and Apps companies, the failure or the Apps company to exploit a market opportunity solely to boost the OS company is a failure to act in the Apps company's shareholders interests - a violation of "fiduciary responsibility" and the management can be personally sued for any losses incurred. Even if this is a small percentage, it can add up to a lot of money for an individual to have to pay. Also the company legal department cannot legally be used in the defense. This is one very strong reason why so many assume that a breakup will lead to the Apps division supporting more OSes (which it would manifestly have the resources to do). Think about it.
Actually the current AOL disc has IE 5 on it.
I'm somewhat disturbed by the sighting of sources here. ABC news reports that The Washington Post and USA Today published 2 different accounts of possible action against MS. I would at least like to see them note that they have a source that can confirm this, or have some sort of source in the DOJ or something. For all I know the Post and USA Today are reporting that ABC is reporting that they reported . . .
It sort of reminds me of that game where you whisper a message to the person next to you and they to the person next and without fail the message gets screwed up. I wouldn't be shocked if this all started with some attorney asking another attorney "Hey, do you know where I can get some really cool clip art?"
One test of the "fairness" of the Microsoft breakup is whether there will be anything left in the industry to compete with AOL. AOL bundles not only the AOL ISP and Netscape Browser products, but a broad range of mass media via Time-Warner -- and it is moving rapidly to vertical market applications on its combination of ISP/Browser.
Seastead this.
Spokespersons from the General Services Administration indicated that most Federally-owned Intel-based PCs will be donated to public schools, helping to bridge the Digital Divide, and users who need to retain the hardware for special applications can either install Linux or FreeBSD. "This historic arrangement will also allow us to deploy Posix-compliant software on the most common end-user platforms in Federal use, which we've been trying to mandate for 10 years."
A few details are not yet finalized, such as obtaining Sony Playstation 2 hardware for users needing supercomputer capability who don't want the non-exportable Mac G4 configurations.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If you build cars, you have to comply with environmental and safety regulations, if you are in the telecom or broadcasting bussiness you have to comply with the FCC. You are required to have spare parts available for 10 years for the appliances you produce... if you sell buggy software... nothing.
I think the worst punishment for Microsoft is to create a Federal Software Commision to enforce a "Software Quality Act". Software companies should get their aproval before releasing "new features" like those 'enhancements' to the Kerberos protocol.
I can see the headlines: "Microsoft fined by the FSC for buggy OS".
---
HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
In addition to your suggested remedies, I would add that I think one of the most effective ways to limit Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior would be to require them to make public all the data formats they use. This would not only include the formats for such ubiquitous file types as Word or Excel, but also interapplication and networking data streams as well.
Microsoft has generously offered to open their application API's, at least some of them. What a sham! This is just another way to encourage people to develop application which rely on Microsoft products.
Exposing the data, however, would make it easier for people to sidestep Microsoft entirely. One of the biggest problems here is that the ubiquity of Microsoft products is self sustaining. People use Office because everyone else uses office. People (MSN, perhaps?) create web sites that cater to specific browser features, so people use Explorer. Someone wants to use Kerberos, and gets tricked into implementing Microsoft's version, which compels future migration to more Microsoft products.
These kinds of self-sustaining hooks would be much more difficult to perpetuate if the software development community at large had access to Microsoft's data formats. This would make it easier for anyone with the inclination to produce compatible software without the enormous expense, inaccuracy, and delay inherent to reverse engineering.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
2) MS-1 Responsible for all ones in the binary.
___
Collusion is much easier to prove that what MS has done in the past. So if the software division gets the OS guys to tweak an API so that Office runs and Notes doesn't, it'd be much easier for the DOJ to fine both of them and possibly levy criminal charges against individuals.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
But the breakup remedy I heard had Microsoft split into two divisions. One for the apps and the other for the Operating System with IE! Wasn't that the problem in the first place?
Mmmm.. Donuts
I think that Matt and Trey got it right the first time =)
( Please forgive any quoting errors, I haven't seen the film in almost a year )
Cheers
Tenement
--
I don't get it. Could anyone please explain to me (?again?) how this would benefit consumers? Is it possible to force the three seperate companies not to cooperate?
n g from happening again.
In my not so well informed opinion it would be much better to force them to open up their standards or to adhere to open standards and make a reasonable effort (to be determined by a team of impartial experts?) to be compatible with competing products. The last would be to prevent something like the let's-not-make-windows-compatible-with-dr-dos-thi
Of course I always like to be corrected when my opinions don't make sense...
If there is hope, it lies in the trolls.
Will breaking up MS not just make them a more powerful force? See AT&T/Lucent/Misc Bells. They were split up... and now they are merging again ... hmmm.
Aside from that. This means no anti-trust cases will stick in the future. Once they are split up, each company can monopolize on it's individual area and not be committing a crime.
SL33ZE, MCSD
em: joedipshit@hotmail.com
SL33ZE - Artificial Intelligence is No Match For Natural Stupidity -
The problem was NOT that Microsoft had a monopoly in operating systems. Not only is having a monopoly legal, but operating systems are a natural monopoly. Because of the single API, it is more efficient to have one OS than 10, therefore, one OS dominates the general market and the rest handle niches were specialization trump the efficiency.
The charge that Microsoft faces is using one Monopoly to try to establish another (forcing you to get IE if you get Windows... and as Windows is a monopoly...) and anti-competitive practices to maintain their monopoly. Netscape offered the use of a web browser to replace operating systems. Microsoft, in a competitive world, would make their operating system a better idea than the web browser, i.e. some sort of network software distribution model... like RDP and Multi-Win that they bought from Citrix. Instead, Microsoft used its cash reserves to run Netscape out of business. IE was created for ONE purpose, the destruction of Netscape and the protection of the Windows monopoly.
By separating Windows and Office, the monopolies could not enforce each other. Microsoft Windows is a monopoly, by rigging Windows to support Office best (releasing the Win95 version of the Win32 APIs to the Office development team before competitors), they use this monopoly to get and keep the Office Suite monopoly... In face, this monopoly first existed in Office 95, which they gave an unfair advantage to. As a result, Microsoft Office is a monopoly. Well, they refuse to port this to another OS (the Apple port is half assed, intentionally), which reinforced Windows as the only OS to run Microsoft Office.
If the OS and Application divisions were separate companies, it would be in MS-OS's interests to get as many office suites running best on Windows, because otherwise, they'll lose to other OSes. It is in MS-Apps interests to support every OS, because they want to dominate the Applications market, not lose it to cross platform competition.
Some conduct remedies are required to prevent collusion (because obviously Monopoly rents are too nice, and they know each other...), but in the long run, this would work.
Alex
I don't know about Word, but MS released Excel for the Mac before Windows.
At one time, Mac had the most popular word processor, MacWrite. Someone mismanaged their market-share so badly that Word was allowed to take over as the de-facto standard.
Sure it's free and that makes it useful to many individuals. I have it at home. At work, I use the software provided for me, MS Office.
AFAIK, most corporations dictate the type of office suite software that will be used by their employees. Are there any companies that have decided upon StarOffice as their standard?
Like I said... wasn't sure of Word.
You mean Apple bundled MacWrite with the Macintosh? My gawd! That's just the sort of ruthless activity that got MS$ into trouble. :)
I remember Word 5 on the Mac being a really good program. Then, MS$ ported the windows over to Mac and called it Word 6. IMHO, it was an abortion. Less features, less friendly, etc.
Then again, word processors are typically loaded with far too many "features". Even in an office environment, most of us leave 75% of the capability untouched, IMHO.
How could this be if the reason they're popular is because of MS's monopoly power?
Breaking up Microsoft would result in seperate companies selling seperate parts of the MS product line.
So what?
People who have been using Word will still buy Word, people who have been using IE will still use IE. Further, it is still to each Baby Bill's advantage to simply license software to one another; nothing has changed
In other words, breaking up the company does not introduce competition into the market. It just makes for several sub-monopolies.
It was also announced that Microsoft will have to return the souls of all of the companies they have acquired during the years. No word yet as to whether or not they will return all of the spines collected from their employees...
you don't mean you thought he used Abiword or MacWrite or something, do you?
i love the way people rally behind breaking up microsoft the way people rally against the IMF - here is an organization that has actually done some good for people, helped to propel a movement that revolutionized the world, and we want to seriously hinder its operation?
i'll be the first one laughing when they end up making MORE money from the breakup.
I do not think breaking microsoft up is good. Period.
It will take to long, it is not really worth the effort.
More effective solutions can be come up with
Such as releasing key component ssource code, Office namely. Release them in an unrestrictive licsense.
Jeremy
Linux will never achieve a significant market share in the corporate desktop market so long as it lacks a version of MS Office.
Sure it lacks Microsoft® Brand Office, but it has another brand of Office, the StarOffice suite from Sun Microsystems. Still binary, but at least it's free beer. So go download it and get liquored up :-)
Will I retire or break 10K?
http://slashdot.org/articles/00 /03/29/2245207.shtml
As I was saying:
solution (Score:1)
by roman_mir on Wednesday March 29, @11:46PM EST (#81)
(User Info)
Disallow MS to have closed standards.
Open ALL Standards (not the code, just the standards)
Enforce MS to KEEP their standards for at least 5 years in a row.
Disallow MS to brake OTHER standards (Java, W3C etc.)
Disallow MS to acquire other companies for 4 years, disallow MS buying technologies for 3 years.
Disallow MS to interfere with OEMs by either fining them or rewarding. more later...
You can't handle the truth.
I've been fooling around with a computer for about two years now, and I'm still a total neophyte. Partly because I don't have the time and other resources (hardware, software, network of mentors to help me with the basics) to "go larval" and pile in the knowledge, but I believe partly because of M$' deliberate obfuscation of the guts of their software. So, even though this is a site more for people who understand this stuff than for newbies, can anyone explain in some detail what advantages I might look forward to from an MS breakup? And, any advice on steps I might take in the meantime to learn more on my own? I have an old P133 w/ 1.2 gig HD that I could dedicate to Linux once I transplant my old info into my new box (Compaq Cyrix M-II 366@250Mhz, 4G HD). What's the best/cheapest way to go about such a transplant, and what's the best/cheapest way to install Linux w/o a network of "Linux buddies?" Is my local LUG's installfest a good bet, or am I better off going it alone so as to learn more? Okay, so I'm off topic, but I haven't yet seen a thread that addresses the needs of the computer newbie who's interested in Linux -- all the info out there presumes a substantial understanding of at least some of the guts of Windoze, but isn't the point of Linux at least partly to free us of the tyranny of Redmond?
"The Windows company would be permitted to include functions that permit browsing of the Interne"
Uh, so this would change what??
Even if they do break up Microsoft, couldn't the software and OS sister companies just form an agreement with each other to bundle software with each other and give "favors" to the sister comapany? Oh, but if they did that AFTER the break up, it would be all legal then...
For an example, the MacOS could say "We are going to Intergate Opera with out OS" and then make an API so screwed up that MS or Netscape can't develop a browser on it. Then have Opera state "Opera is the Number 1 browser on the MacOS. To get an updated version send $56.99 to..." Both companies beinifit and create a fake monopoly that is prefectly legal
And the Microsoft sister companies won't be able to do this after the break up?
come on... force Microsoft to release all current and furture code under the GPL
Breaking up Microsoft could have some faults in it.
"Windows monopoly to crush competitors, stifle innovation and harm consumers in the computer industry."
I have been saying this for HOW LONG? Does anyone else beilieve me yet?!?
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
"no one got fired for buying MS..."
I would like to work and have a job at a place where people DO get fired for buying from Microsoft...what has happened to ethics these days? Seriously, when everyone is a kid hacking on their Linux distro of choice, learning about computers, then they grow up. Then they have to get jobs, and in these jobs they "dis"-learn everything they learned as a kid, both about computers and morally.
I once losed a job because I started debating with them about using Apache over IIS during in job interview... and it wasn't really a debate, I was just wondering what advantages IIS had over Apache in this envoriment and they couldn't name ONE reason, the best things I remeber from it was "Because it can be used to serve web pages to our users", "Apache can do that and it will run on a free operating system"... that awkward silence where you know you have lose the job...I don't want to work for a company that has a hard on for MS anyways...
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
Linux and open source will eventually catch up and Microsoft will be fscked.
Breaking up this company now will accomplish nothing. Opening them up to the litigators would hurt them substantially more and would be a better way to penalise them and to compensate the companies that have, over the years, been fucked over by Billy boy and his bunch of lackey bastards.
:wq
Microsoft owns the source code to windows, that gives them an advantage to code apps for windows that some other company wouldn't be able to code without prior knowledge of the aformentioned windows source code.
I'm all for breaking them up, but only if they also had to release the source code for Windows to make it easier for other companies to code apps for windows. If you know exactly how windows works inside and out you could code a much better app.
Irreguardless of personal opinion, we need to realize that Microsoft has a right to exist. They should be treated with the same as any other company would be. Just don't make things unfair for the consumers.
"Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know."
-- Ernest Hemingway
Order Microsoft to redesign Windows so that Netscape, Mozilla, or whatever other browser can be used in Windows instead of Internet Explorer.
This would mean the window frames might be a bit different, or Microsoft would have to allow the web browser to configure its own toolbar settings, or whatever; but it also means that if I want to use Netscape, but like the idea of a web browser integrated into my shell, then I can have Netscape run instead of Internet Explorer.
I'm sure it can be done with some API and some heavy duty rewiring. It'll save us all a major headache from having Microsoft split up.
Bill will get richer... (Actually, it seems no matter what happens Bill get's richer... perhaps they should break him up.)
We've heard various lines on how they would break up MS... but what's to stop the mini-MS companies from co-operating?
BlackNova Traders
Breaking the company up in this fashion would not serve the American people, but actually harm it. Splitting the company along product lines would not guarantee fair competition in the OS market, it would furthur strengthen it's stranglehold on corporate america.
While the applications sub-company would no longer be bound to creating only windows apps,it is not a guarantee that they would build the flagship for any OS outside of windows. By splitting the company up on these lines, This is a punitive measure, not a corrective one.
If the US Goverenment wants to correct the problem (Which IMNSHO is that I am forced to buy Windows to get IE, use Word and Excel and a bunch of other corporate-america-accepted-psuedo-standard software), they should take and make three or four Microsoft clones. Make them Identitcal, give them all the source code to all of the products. Make them COMPETE. Trust me, if there were 3 or 4 exact same companies, they would then have to compete to deliver and sell the product to anyone. Want Windows, no browser? MS#1 might not sell that, but MS#2 would climb up and sell that to ya... The OS could'nt be hijacked and controlled by One company, as each is vying for a quarter share of the marketplace they held as a unit....
They must be made to compete If the states fail to do that, the rest does not matter.
Thanks.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again : Theres nothing like being redundant.
I can see how breaking up Microsoft helps their competetors, but how does it really help consumers? Most people who bitch about M$'s monopoly and how crappy their software is tend to be the ones who find alternatives : Linux, StarOffice, etc. But, the vast majority of people who are using Windows etc. are the people who don't understand much about computers. I work at my school's computer lab, and alot of people have a hard time telling the difference between Mac & Win. How are these people going to cope with several differnt versions of Windows that may not be 100% compatible? or breaking along product lines : what is to sto the app's department from hijacking the source to Windows and realeasing their own copy? Maybe Microsoft needs to be punished, but how much and at what cost?
Let's review them.
1) Disband the company and sentence all its employes with stock options to life sentences of cleaning public bathrooms with their tongues.
2) Hurl Gates and Co. from a helicopter over Pugeot Sound.
3) Order Gates and Co. to appear at the desk of anyone whose computer has frozen or BSODed and offer, first, to debug the OS and then beg to be slapped for producing such egregious crap.
4) Divide MSFT into a number of companies that might compete rather than collude.
The first three options have their charms - (3) is my favorite but (4) might give us a fighting chance to see, yes, COMPETING OSes in PCs, like 1985, when you could go to the computer store and chose from CP/M, AppleDOS, Amiga, MS-DOS, etc.
For God's sake, someone please channel Gary Kildall. He'd know what to make of this opportunity!
PFC
1) If MS is prevented from running their business as they do now, consumers will benefit.
2) It is good that the government is stepping in.
3) Bill Gates should be ripped up/executed/shot.
Hopefully 3) was mainly done in jest or to get attention. The posts that related this should have been (4; Funny) at best, not (4; Informative). But people who post shit like this probably aren't interested in a discussion about MS, so I'll ignore that group.
As for 1) and 2), ask yourself this: where is a non-MS, decent Office Suite? StarOffice? It is a mess. I don't know about your experiences with it, but it crashes all the time on my machine (Redhat 6.1 PII with 96 Megs of RAM), leaks memory like a spaghetti drainer, and similar to netscape, leaves zombie processes floating around that eat up all your cpu time, and must be hunted down. A serious piece of software should not do that. Now, MS office certainly has its share of bugs, but not as badly as Staroffice. We can go back and forth about which one is slightly better, but that isn't even the point. If they are at least comparable, then how can all of you say that MS has hindered development? If Staroffice is the best that the rest of the software industry can do, then maybe there _is_ something to the claim that MS's technology is at least partially the reason for their success.
Netscape is another good example. It is clearly inferior to IE, in my opinion. Well, you say, that is because MS has access to all the Windows internal calls. But what about netscape on Mac/UNIX? It is a piece of shit. Netscape is so unstable on some of my machines that I have to ssh and run it remotely when I am on them. I have used IE on mac, not UNIX, but there I have found it to be far better. (It goes without saying that it is far better on windows)
I'm sure MS has secret backdoors into windows for better performance. And I'm sure that they make a policy of embracing and extending anything they can. But before you decide they are so evil, that the government should come in and strip their rights away, think about this: they _do_ have good technology. ESR may not think that their OS is elegant like Be's, but it works, and works well. And their office suite is an accomplishment that has yet to be matched by anyone, open source or commercial.
I won't get into the debate of what specific antitrust measures are justified against them, but consider this: if MS is such a powerful monopoly and so dangerous, then why were they utterly unable to make a successful online service? They certainly bundled MSN into windows, they had all sorts of promotions, and they did the best they could with it, but by any measure AOL has clobbered them. Why was this? Could it be that AOL had better "technology"? (Technology in this context means a system that is easy for people to use and thus helps them get shit done) This unconfortable fact has been glossed over by most anti-MS zealots.
Everyone seems so eager to accept government intervention. A countermeasure that everyone here seems to want is a measure forcing MS to publish the prices it charges all of its PC customers, or perhaps even a measure forcing MS to charge a certain, uniform price for windows. OK, fine. But what about next year, when the government decides that Redhat has no right to give slashdot users a 10% discount on redhat linux, because Redhat holds a monopoly on that? Will you still support government intervention then?
Everyone here seems to think that MS needs regulation. That's fine; everyone has their own opinion. But what is so amazingly arrogant is that everyone here assumes a few set things about the case, and that therefore all sorts of drastic government measures are justified.
After reading the ABC/Reuters report, it got me to thinking. [takes puff off of virtual ce-gar]
Ya see, not counting the myth and inerta around Microsoft, what do we know about the rest of the industry?
Operating systems are commodities.
Services dominate, not shelfware.
90% of all software is custom.
UNIX = lingua franca; All major and most minor operating systems -- including embeded ones -- are based on some variant of Unix or are moving to it.
Application vendors like Corel, and IBM's Lotus division aren't raking in money hand over fist.
Most software companies have one-product or have a very limited focus.
Most software companies have competitors, in the real sense of the word.
Now, back to Microsoft...let's take it as a given that they will be split up. How much is are the parts of Microsoft actually worth?
OS: Windows OS -- including W2K -- has a necessary limited lifespan as a profit center.
Service: The poor service and arrogance -- second only to IBM of the 70s & 80s -- will have to improve, or the services will have to be charged for in inventive ways.
Custom development: The language division becomes more important, as it will switch to reselling the unbundled GUI, API, and specialized modules.
UNIX: If you can't beat them, join them. Watch those unbundled modules from the Windows client and server move to other operating systems.
Applications: The application division will spin off many of the different parts to boost share value. I doubt that Office will be broken up, but FoxPro and other programs built in-house or bought along the way might pop up again as mini-Bills.
Limited focus: With little to bind the "baby Bills" together, and stockholders demanding increased returns, MS's parts will disintegrate into the general computer software market to the point where it won't make any difference that it is or isn't a Microsoft product.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Although I do not work in antitrust, let me offer couple of things from a lawyer's perspective:
1. As a general rule, Judges do not like to maintain continuing jurisdiction over a dispute. They like to come to a decision, issue an order and move on.
2. In addition to the game theory explanation that was mentioned above as to why a breakup would lead to more competition, a breakup would create a type of private regulation. If individual companies do not act to maximize shareholder wealth then the directors of company are subject to a shareholder derivative suit. While collusion would maximize shareholder wealth, it will be almost impossible to hide this type of collusion from the DOJ.
Remember boys and girls, capitalism works best when it takes the worst aspects of our society (greed, litigiousness) and turns them to the public good.
ok, people are saying that the states all agree with the federal government, how likely is that? wouldn't the states want to heavily fine MS and then divide the spoils? besides I can think of better ways to curb MS, break it in to 3 companies that all have a copy and rights to all the software. if one of the MS's sells an API to a company then the other's have to accept that the offending company can run on their version of windows or they can change the API, though that will insure that MS will be incompatable with the others. Sure, they might all change their API, but then nothing out there now will run on them and companies can shop around for the cheapest. Yes another monopoly can result from this, but there will be competion before then, lots of it. Course if you just want to put MS out of business then don't let them make exclusive contracts, open their API to everyone, and not allow their marketing dept. to lie.
This Sunday, Micro$oft arranged every American to wake up to a picture of a robocop DOJ agent pointing a gun at a frightened six year old...thus placing in everybodies mind that the DOJ are bullies out to get everyone who wants to stand up for themselves.
M$ would like nothing better to paint themselves as the bullied...although in the case of M$, the feds actually have a reason to be so tenacious and vicious.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
This gets me thinking about the Windows APIs though -- isn't it true that one of the complaints that has come up is that the MSFT office products sometimes take advantage of undocumented features in the Windows API that competitors can't use? This seems like the sort of thing the governemnt can and should force MSFT to publish. Please correct me if I'm off base, as I'm not a Windows developer.
Operating systems are a tricky legal space. They usually get treated like software, but they really should be treated more like hardware, IMO. How the OS works and how you can hook into it directly relates to how easy it is for software companies to compete with each other. If some companies have information others have no way of accessing, they have an unfair advantage.
IMHO,
Microsoft Breakup into:
#1 Applications
#2 OS
#3 Internet
Companies, would result in:
Incredible new growth for the industry
Excellent oportunity for consumers with new choices.
A boon to stock holders.
I don't see a down side.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
All it would take is for the US government to change its procurement policies and specify that henceforth they will only purchase software that has openly published file formats, published APIs, and meets specified interoperability requirements. As the largest software purchaser in the world, the US government is actually the 500 pound gorilla in this case, not Microsoft. If the government implemented such a policy, and then began returning correspondence as "unreadable", you better believe corporate America would quickly follow suit. Why? Because the government is also the largest purchaser of shoes, vehicles, food, and about everything else. In another Slashdot article today, it looks like France is thinking about going this way.
Quick action from the U.S. Judicial department breaks Microsoft into multiple companies, in hopes of defending and benefiting the consumer.
Three days later:
Quick News Release: April 28, Seattle Washington
Bill Gates spends 40 billion and buys out all three parts of the recently split Microsoft, and combines them into one company now called "Microsauft.' Consumers expect better products will arrive shortly.
/. is a commercial entity. goto slashdot.com
no, I think a Breakup wouldn't work, the smaller companies would just endup working together and Bill would just get ritcher ..... it's funny, I don't see them talking about open-sourcing Windows ..... wouldn't that be the way to go? ... not neccisarily for FREE ... you know ... charge about $1000 for it ... I think that would be fair, and then allow companies to write an operating system that would use Windows as a base, so that ALL software would run on it ... wouldn't it be nice if someone came out with a version of Linux that ran Windows applications BETTER than WINE?
DaiTengu
--------
Damage Inc. BBS
And I thought MS will be divided into 'sales', 'marketing' and 'legal' ...
They should also do this to AOL too. Otherwise, instead of one company controlling a market, you have three...
----------
Is this sig off topic?
Chris 'coldacid' Charabaruk Meldstar Entertainment
your suggestion is a good one: break Microsoft up into a ... beowulf cluster!
U ARE RITE THAT M$ SHOULDNT BREAK UP BECUZ THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN MAKE FAST PROGRAMZ. YOU SEE, WINDOWS HAS A PROGRAMZ LANGUAGE CALLED QBASIC. THIS IS WHAT ME AND OTHER 1337 H4X0RZ USE TO CODE 31337 H4CKZ AND 3XPL0I7TZ. IT IS BETTER THAN LINSUX AND MACS AND BSDZ BECUZ QBASIC IS NATIVE TO WINBLOZEW(IT RUNS LIKE WINDOBLOZE CODE--LINSUZ AND OTHER STUFF DON'T HAVE THIS!!)!!!!!!
HI!!!!!!!!
Microsoft should be broken up. The reason is simple, Microsoft controls everything in one. Unlike IBM which has separate companies(Lotus, Tivoli). That is why Microsoft has so much power, but they may still be dominate. So what the goverment needs to do is make another Microsoft. Like what they did with AT&T, MCI came along. If the goverment does do this Microsoft will really have to compete, and inturn better products and services will come out. Look at Intel, wasn't Intel a dominate processor manufacturer, and now AMD has come out, and Intel is running for their money. Down with Micro$oft!
In other words if the government says "You have to break up, like this," what physically prevents MS from saying "OK, make me!"
I suppose, as the other poster suggested, their papers of incorporation could be revoked. MS could, in theory, move the company to some other country (and I expect plenty of countries would be glad to have them), pay to move all the talented employees there, hire locals, and go on doing business. The government could, of course, try to prevent legal sales of the software, but their software is likely to be sold primarily directly over the Internet in the future - unstoppable, in principle.
Thoughts? You can't put a company in jail, and it's really hard to put a really rich guy in jail, someone who can, basically, buy a small country with pocket change...
- Robyn
Thanx for your level head, Todd.
We must all think more thoroughly about the big picture and how each of us *individually* might *do* something better. The most insidious problem with any monopoly is the sense of futility that pervades the marketplace where it operates. We'll know we've found a real remedy when we *all* clearly see our own *opportunities* enhanced as a result.
The most insidious problem with any monopoly is the sense of futility that pervades the marketplace where it operates. We'll know we've found a real remedy when we *all* clearly see our own *opportunities* enhanced as a result.
There are times when I wonder if MicroSoft's fight against a breakup isn't a "Oh, please don't throw me the Brer patch" strategy. The AT&T model isn't entirely apt and who knows where its all going in telecom today, but breaking up AT&T was essentially a winner for all, especially the share holders.
It's likely that breaking up MicroSoft will yeild 3 or 4 hyper-competitive companies. And who knows of what they will be capable. But what the Microbabies won't have will be the anticompetivie advantage of being bundled, linked or even all-but-bundled with the OS on 90% of all PCs. Nor will they have the advantage that comes with a hugely profitable revenue stream coming from the OS sales and upgrades. The Microbabies will have to do it alone both intellectually and financially. This will certainly level the playing field considerably.
But whether this will really matter will depend as much on the competitors as it does on the Microbabies. If the competition doesn't compete effectively, then the Microbabies will continue to expand. Will the competitors be up to the challenge? Only time will tell. But at least they will be competing on a more or less level field for the first time in decades.
In the absence of a breakup, MS will simply grow larger, more dominant and anticompetitive. Think bundling will end with IE? Its a wonder to me why MS didn't start by bundling Office. Who'd have been left standing if they'd started there?
Can you think of other major apps that could be bundled with the OS following MS's same lame argument used in defense of bundling IE?
Breaking up MS isn't a perfect solution. Windows will continue to be dominant player in the OS market, and the Microbabies will start with the advantage of their already considerable marketshares. But this has got to be better than the status quo.
Every company with more than one product subsidizes products. You have to to move into other strategic areas i.e. change. If MS did not attempt to become more internet savvy, it would be dead in a few years. If you want to break up MS, then you have to break up IBM, Sun including any company offering free internet access etc.
Has the world gone mad (mass hysteria). Bundeling has been happening for centuries and won't stop, and why should it !!!